Casey Anthony not guilty, only if she has O.J.'s jury....

This kinda stuff always cracks me up. Representative democracy doesn't have a bottom-line requirement of timeliness or convenience. Rights come with responsibilities, and there isn't a person here who is so important or whose time is so valuable that he/she should skate on his/her civic obligations.

Ah Ken. No one is suggesting even one smidge of a change but that doesnt stop many of us from frustration and expressing an opinion that, in this case, justice was not served.

Jeff from all accounts, from professionals in the courtroom, the jury seemed to have made up their minds long before closing arguements. It was pointed out by several that all but one juror stopped even trying to take notes about midway through the prosecutions forensic specialists. Many felt while that testimony was compelling it was poorly presented being much too technical. And they did not resume taking notes even after this. And, as I pointed out to Ken, dont believe any of us is advocating changing the system but frustration with the way the system worked in this matter.

That frustration is not just with the verdict but with the way the prosecution crafted and presented their case. Is it any wonder the lead prosecutor has announced his retirement?

Oh, and by the way Jeff, the entire proceding was streamed live here on local cable channel. I am not sure I would know Star Jones if she bit Ken!

TB, as you know the majority of eligible voters don't vote, and make that the vast majority in lower-tier elections. I'd say even more jury-eligible people will say or do anything to get out of jury duty. (Let's not forget that there are two key concepts in there, "jury" and "duty.") The aged are disproportionately represented in juries and polling places.

What is a jury of one's peers? That concept certainly has morphed over time.

Marc, frustration is cool. I'm just most taken by the obsession with this case, and admittedly until I saw this thread pop up when I logged in a few days ago I had heard, seen and read word zero on this case. Apparently I don't read the pertinent sections of the Times and WSJ, and it wasn't covered on NOVA.

Unfortunately for us, in Tampa, just a little over an hour and a half west of the whole circus it has been a continuing story from the day the child was reported missing. Local newspapers and news stations, TV and radio, had regular stories even before this trial. As mentioned the local news channel on cable here, usually great for such things as weather updates every 10 minutes and great places to visit in the local area saw fit to stream live the whole proceeding for most of the day. Absent not checking the progress of our daily storms, cancelling the newspaper and not bothering to even turn the TV on it was impossible, in this area, to escape. In fact it struck me in the face as it were each time I logged on as the local Brighthouse webpage on my log in always had at least something on the trial! Was one reason they moved the trial and STILL had trouble seating a jury.

By the way, HAS Star Jones ever bitten you and did it require shots?

Who is Star Jones (I know, I know, google it)?

We're outside of my knowledge base, but I would guess that a jury of peers meant that you were judged not by Royalty, but as a commoner, you were only judged by other commoners. In this country we are ALL peers of each other.

But what if we did elections like juries? We disqualify anyone from voting who has any knowledge of the candidates. Then the candidates can do limited presentations that follow certain rules. Would that be better than our current system of voting? It might be. Or not.

I think there is more right with our justice system than wrong. But I think there can be improvements. The one I'd like to see is we don't disqualify jurists to the extent we do.

TB,
you think too much.. knock it off/turn it off

Functional literacy as a lowest-common denominator for jurists, perhaps? But what is functional and literacy? (Oh, one of my faaaave things about jury duty ... A person can be excused for insufficient knowledge of English yet the route to jury service is through possession of a valid driver's license or being registered to vote?)

How do you make the electorate actually think and vote? Impossible. There's no sense of pride and civic obligation. I mean, everyone hates Congress, right? Yet most every Congressional representative gets returned as long as he/she wants. R is good but D is bad, or vice versa. Idol's on, I can't be bothered to study up and vote, right?

Disqualification of jurors is a key element in our justice system. I'd just make 'em go right back into the current jury pool for whatever the local prerogative is for annual (or whenever) service.

You jest, N'cat.
You've always loved that I've got a big one and use it all the time (brain).